Diane V. Grendell

The case involved a nursing facility (Rae-Ann Geneva) that sued resident Robert Blakeslee for unpaid services provided in 2014 and obtained a summary judgment against him for about $15,603 plus interest. After multiple agreed temporary vacations of the judgment to allow Medicaid claims and adjustments, the trial court reinstated the judgment in October 2016; Blakeslee then filed a motion for relief from judgment alleging new evidence and fraud based on Medicaid payments and an Ohio Administrative Code provision barring collection of any difference between the Medicaid rate and the provider’s charges. The trial court denied the motion, and the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Blakeslee had been aware of the Medicaid coverage and related arguments well before the final judgment was entered and therefore could not use Civ.R. 60(B) to relitigate issues that should have been raised earlier or on direct appeal.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In re J.D.B. involved an appeal by mother Heather Butcher from a juvenile court decision adjudicating her minor son as a dependent and neglected child and placing him in agency custody after she left him with a non-relative, became unreachable, was later hospitalized for mental health issues without stable housing, and was reported to have drug involvement while the father was incarcerated. The Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication, holding that a non-attorney agency employee could properly file the complaint under Juv.R. 10(A) and R.C. 2151.27, that denial of a continuance for the mother's drug treatment was within the court's discretion, that reasonable-efforts findings were not required at the adjudicatory stage, and that the evidence supported findings of dependency under R.C. 2151.04(A)–(C) and neglect under R.C. 2151.03(A)(2)–(3). The court rejected the mother's other procedural objections, concluding the juvenile court's rulings were consistent with applicable statutes and rules.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Conneaut police had reasonable suspicion to stop Jodi Rowe for suspected drunk driving after an anonymous caller reported a vehicle “all over the roadway” and an officer followed her, observing her nearly drive off the road into rocks before initiating the stop; Rowe was then charged with DUI and related traffic offenses. The municipal court granted her motion to suppress, ruling that the tip lacked indicia of reliability and that the officer’s testimony did not establish a marked-lanes violation. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the totality of circumstances—including the tip’s details and the officer’s direct observations of erratic driving—provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop under established Fourth Amendment standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a nursing facility, Shepherd of the Valley, suing the executor of Rose Cesta’s estate to recover about $24,867 for unpaid room, board, and care services provided before her death in May 2016. The trial court granted summary judgment to the executor, and the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the claim was barred by R.C. 2117.06 because it had not been properly presented within six months of the decedent’s death. Although the facility petitioned for appointment of a special administrator on the final day of the statutory period, the appointment and formal presentment occurred after the deadline, and the court ruled that the creditor bears the responsibility to secure a timely presentation, with no exception for delays in judicial appointment.

healthcareprocedure

In Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, a divorce case in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas involving custody and spousal support claims, the wife appealed the trial court's order releasing her mental health records from the Cleveland Psychoanalytic Center to her husband's counsel under a protective order. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the wife had waived the physician-patient privilege by placing her physical and mental condition at issue through her requests for custody (under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(e)) and spousal support. The court reasoned that Ohio law creates an exception to the privilege in such proceedings, that the magistrate conducted an in camera review confirming relevance, and that the protective order sufficiently limited dissemination to counsel, parties, and experts.

family law

The case concerned whether a foreclosure judgment entered in favor of Geauga Savings Bank on its cross-claim was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because the bank allegedly failed to serve the cross-claim on appellants Rodney and Dorothy Whitright under Civ.R. 5, even though they had been served with the original partition complaint. The trial court denied the appellants’ motion to vacate the judgment, and the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The majority concluded that the trial court retained jurisdiction over the appellants as to the cross-claim, so the judgment was not void; the provided excerpt reflects the dissent’s contrary view that defective service on the cross-claim deprived the court of jurisdiction and rendered the foreclosure, sheriff’s sale, and confirmation order void.

procedureproperty

In State v. Knoefel, defendant Kevin Knoefel, convicted in 2014 of complicity to aggravated murder and multiple counts of sexual battery and sentenced to life in prison, appealed the trial court’s denial of three post-trial motions: one to disqualify the Lake County Prosecutor’s Office, one for a new trial under Crim.R. 33, and one for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the denials in full. It held that disqualification was not required because the former defense attorney hired by the prosecutor’s office had no involvement in the case; that the affidavits from jail inmates claiming the state’s key witness had admitted to lying about Knoefel’s role constituted merely cumulative impeachment evidence that did not create a strong probability of a different result; and that the ineffective-assistance claims were not supported by the materials submitted with the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Tudor, Daniel Tudor was charged with reckless operation of a vehicle under R.C. 4511.20 after police observed him riding a bicycle down the center of a lane on a busy commercial street while holding a cup in one hand and keeping the other off the handlebars, along with related traffic counts that were later dismissed or resulted in acquittal. Following a bench trial, the municipal court convicted him of reckless operation, finding that his manner of riding violated the statute’s prohibition on willful or wanton disregard for safety. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove the offense because Tudor’s compromised ability to steer or brake suddenly created a risk to himself and others, even absent any actual collision or loss of control. The court further concluded that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, noting that the statute may be violated by the prohibited manner of operation itself regardless of whether harm occurred.

criminal law

The case involved Kevin L. Martin’s appeal from convictions on multiple felony and misdemeanor counts, including failure to comply with a police order, weapons under disability, drug possession, and related offenses, arising from two separate incidents in Lake County. After the trial court rejected Martin’s day-of-trial request to plead guilty to one count, denied his motions to disqualify counsel and sever charges, and conducted jury trials, he was convicted and sentenced. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit plain error in its procedural rulings, that joinder of the counts was proper because the evidence for each incident was simple and direct, and that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and the weight of the evidence, including eyewitness identifications and DNA recovered from items at the scenes.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In Jones v. Natural Essentials, Inc., the plaintiffs sued their former employer for wrongful termination tied to a workers’ compensation claim, but the appeal concerned post-filing sanctions for discovery violations. The trial court imposed sanctions after the plaintiffs repeatedly failed to respond to interrogatories, document requests, and admissions despite court orders to compel; walked out of scheduled videotaped depositions despite proper notice; and did not pay court-reporter fees. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions, holding that the conduct constituted frivolous and obstructionist behavior sanctionable under R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11 and Civ.R. 37, that the defendant’s affidavits and invoices sufficiently supported the awards of attorney fees and reporter costs, and that the reduced fee amount was reasonable under the circumstances.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Anderson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of felony domestic violence after a trial on charges stemming from an assault on his girlfriend; the felonious assault count was dismissed after a deadlock, and he received an aggregate 36-month prison sentence consisting of 24 months for the domestic violence plus a consecutive 12-month term for violating post-release control. Anderson appealed, arguing that the record did not support a prison term rather than community control and that the trial court failed to calculate and award jail-time credit. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the record clearly and convincingly supported incarceration given Anderson’s history of domestic violence convictions, prior felonies, and prison terms. It remanded solely for the trial court to determine the specific number of days of jail-time credit, notify the defendant, and include that calculation in the sentencing entry as required by R.C. 2967.191.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Danny Lee Hill’s 2018 appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas’ denial of his motion for a new trial (based on post-1986 advances in forensic odontology questioning the reliability of bite-mark evidence used at his 1986 trial) and his motion to disqualify the county prosecutor’s office. Hill had been convicted by a three-judge panel of aggravated murder and related offenses arising from the 1985 killing of Raymond Fife and sentenced to death. The trial court granted leave to file the new-trial motion under Crim.R. 33(B) but ultimately denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and also denied disqualification. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that res judicata and the law of the case barred relitigation of issues already decided, that the new forensic guidelines did not demonstrate a strong probability of a different outcome at trial, that the prosecutor’s office need not be disqualified absent actual prejudice, and that a conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Taylor, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial on nine separate counts of cruelty to companion animals arising from the neglect of three dogs kept in unsanitary conditions without adequate food, shelter, or veterinary care, resulting in severe flea infestations, skin infections, ear mites, whipworms, and fly strike. The trial court imposed sentences on all nine counts under former and current versions of R.C. 959.131. On appeal, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in part but modified the judgment to merge three counts (G-I) with the others and vacate the sentences for those counts. The court reasoned that merger was not required for offenses involving distinct acts of neglect toward three separate animals under different statutory subsections, but agreed with the State’s concession that the later-filed counts duplicated the same conduct already charged and should merge to avoid multiple punishments for allied offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

In Victor v. Big Sky Energy, Inc., property owners sued an oil and gas company to terminate leases on wells that had produced no oil or gas for years, to remove a compressor left on the land after its separate lease expired, and for related damages and fees. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, terminating the leases, finding trespass, and awarding damages plus attorney’s and expert fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lease terminations, finding that three years of non-production ended the leases under their terms, and upheld the trespass ruling and damages as supported by the evidence. It reversed the fee awards, holding that defending a lawsuit does not constitute the bad faith needed for attorney’s fees in trespass and that expert fees require an underlying award of punitive damages or attorney’s fees, which was absent here.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Garner, the defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his 2018 Motion to Nullify his 2007 sentencing judgment entry, claiming an inconsistency between the sentence orally announced at the hearing and the written entry rendered his 13-year prison term void. The Lake County Court of Common Pleas construed the motion as an untimely postconviction petition and denied it. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the motion was properly treated as a postconviction petition filed well beyond statutory deadlines. It further noted that Garner had raised the identical sentencing-inconsistency argument in a prior appeal, where the court had already examined the record and determined that the judgment entry accurately reflected the total sentence imposed and that any discrepancy was harmless. Because the issue had been fully litigated and no new grounds justified revisiting it, the denial was upheld.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brownfield Restoration Group, LLC v. Trickett, a company that performs environmental assessments sued property owner Howard Trickett for breach of contract after he refused to pay a $5,500 invoice or proceed with the work, while Trickett counterclaimed for fraudulent inducement, alleging he was misled about whether the company would obtain state cleanup funding. The trial court found Trickett breached the contract and dismissed the counterclaim, awarding BRG damages for the completed Phase I assessment and related tasks. On appeal, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Trickett failed to supply a required business plan needed to apply for Phase II funding under the Clean Ohio program and stopped communicating, preventing full performance. The court further reasoned that the contract explicitly limited BRG’s obligations to the Phase I assessment and assistance with funding applications rather than full cleanup, so there were no conflicting terms that could support a fraudulent inducement claim.

business & regulatoryenvironmentpropertytorts & liability

In State v. Burry, Robert Burry was convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder, felonious assault, and kidnapping arising from a Christmas Eve 2016 domestic incident in which he allegedly pointed a gun at his wife and pulled the trigger twice without the weapon firing, leading to a confrontation with police. The trial court imposed a thirteen-year sentence for attempted murder with a firearm specification after merging the other counts. On appeal, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. It held that the trial court properly excluded an undisclosed defense expert experiment, that any prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument was not prejudicial, that the evidence was sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence despite inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and expert testimony about the gun, and that the sentence was supported by the record given the psychological harm to the victim and the circumstances of the offense.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In State v. Casper, the defendant pleaded guilty to fifth-degree aggravated possession of methamphetamine after the State agreed in the written plea to recommend two years of community control sanctions at sentencing. After the plea but before sentencing, Casper was terminated from a community corrections program (NEOCAP) imposed in a separate case; the State then refused to make the promised recommendation and instead sought a prison term, prompting Casper to move to withdraw his plea on grounds that the State had breached the agreement. The trial court denied the motion, finding Casper merely dissatisfied with the changed recommendation, accepted the guilty plea, and imposed an 11-month prison sentence. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed, vacated the plea, and remanded, holding that the written agreement contained no condition requiring successful completion of NEOCAP and that the State’s refusal to honor its explicit sentencing promise therefore breached the agreement, entitling Casper to withdraw the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s 2014 foreclosure action against Clarence and Deborah Carlson after they defaulted on a restructured promissory note secured by a mortgage on their Geauga County home. The trial court entered a 2015 foreclosure judgment, the property was sold at sheriff’s sale in 2016, and the court later confirmed the sale and ordered distribution of proceeds; the Carlsons appealed, claiming improper notice of the sale and defects in the underlying judgment such as an expired statute of limitations and incorrect loan amounts. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation order, holding that notice was properly served on the Carlsons’ attorney of record under Civ.R. 5(B)(1) and R.C. 2329.26, that any notice issue caused no prejudice because the Carlsons knew of the sale and sought to stay it, and that challenges to the unappealed 2015 foreclosure decree could not be raised in the ancillary confirmation proceeding.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Magri, defendant Samuel Magri appealed his jury convictions for fifth-degree felony Theft and Receiving Stolen Property, which arose after equipment (a grinder, two micrometers, and a digital indicator) disappeared from his former employer, Troy Innovative Instruments, and was later recovered from a pawn shop where Magri had pawned the items roughly a month after his 2016 termination. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Troy’s business records (purchase orders, warranty cards, and calibration documents) through testimony from a former plant manager who had set up the equipment and overseen record-keeping, even though he no longer maintained the files daily. The court further concluded that the Theft conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence, because the circumstantial proof—Magri’s recent access, the absence of permission to remove the items, matching serial numbers, and the timing of the pawning—allowed the jury to reject his claim that the tools were either his personal property or mistakenly taken.

criminal law